Support for Attack on Iraq Varies Greatly Among Americans
October 12 2002
On balance, a recently released Harris Poll in the States finds that a 49% to 27% plurality thinks Americans should take military action to change Iraqi government.
Support for, and opposition to, a United States-led attack on Iraq varies greatly depending on the circumstances. Support for an attack on Iraq is strongest if it is authorized by a vote of the United Nations Security Council. There is still substantial, but less, support if Saddam Hussein does not allow weapons inspectors to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. This support declines once again if there is no agreement in the United Nations Security Council and no vote to authorize a military attack on Iraq. If Saddam Hussein allows weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and they are free to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction, only nineteen percent of all adults would support military action.
The main findings in this survey include:
- A 55% majority is either 'very confident' (27%) or 'somewhat confident' (28%) that 'President Bush and his administration will make the right decisions regarding the use, or non-use, of U.S. military to attack Iraq.'
- When asked - before being given the four different scenarios described above - whether or not the U.S. should 'take military action to change the government in Iraq,' a clear but not overwhelming 49% to 27% plurality thinks the U.S. should. However, other questions show that this support is extremely soft and increases or decreases depending on the context.
- When those in favour of military action to change the government in Iraq (49%) were asked if they would favour or oppose it, given four different scenarios, the results vary dramatically. Almost all of them (91% or 45% of all adults) favour a U.S.-led attack if there is 'a vote of the United Nations Security Council to authorize' it. Most (77% or 38% of all adults) favour an attack if 'Saddam Hussein does not allow weapons inspectors to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.' This falls again to only 46% of those initially favouring a U.S.-led attack (or 23% of all adults) if 'there is no agreement in the United Nations Security Council and no vote to authorize a military attack on Iraq.' And it drops again to 38% (i.e. only 19% of all adults) if 'Saddam Hussein allows weapons inspectors to return to Iraq and they are free to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction.'
- Support for attacking Iraq is based on the belief (shared by 72% of all adults) that if nothing is done, and the weapons inspectors cannot do their job, Saddam Hussein 'will use his nuclear, biological or chemical weapons in an attack on the United States.' Forty percent of all adults think this would be 'very likely.'
- One reason for concern about attacking Iraq without a U.N. vote to authorize it is the belief (62% think this is likely) that Russia, China or other countries might use this as a precedent for attacking their enemies.
However, Harris suggests that this data points to one interesting scenario which would work very well for the president. If, by threatening to attack, he can persuade Saddam Hussein to accept real weapons inspection, with weapons inspectors allowed unfettered access to search for and destroy weapons of mass destruction without having to attack, this would probably be seen as a great success.
These are the results of The Harris Poll conducted online between September 24, 2002 and October 2, 2002 among a nationwide sample of 2,023 adults aged 18 or over.
All articles 2006-22 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas unless otherwise stated.
